Table 1 – Transmission Integrity Management Costs - Utah Public ...

attentionclewInternet and Web Development

Feb 2, 2013 (4 years and 6 months ago)

335 views


4
-
1



SYSTEM CAPABILITIES AND CONSTRAINTS


Questar Gas System Overview


Gas supply costs are the primary focus of the IRP process because they represent
a major portion of the total utility cost of service as opposed to IRPs in the electric utility
industry where physical plant and the control of the respective costs are typic
ally the
focus. Nonetheless, an important element of natural gas IRPs is an analysis of the
physical plant used to deliver the product to the consumer. The capacity of the system
must meet the forecasted load in order to provide reliable service to the c
ustomer.


Historically, Questar Gas customers have been served by an integrated
transmission and distribution system connecting natural gas fields in Utah, Wyoming and
Colorado to the Company's Utah, Wyoming, and Idaho markets. The operation of this
inte
grated system remains intact as a result of Questar Gas’ relationship with Questar
Pipeline Company (Questar Pipeline). Questar Gas’ ability to serve its customers is
dependent primarily upon deliveries from Questar Pipeline and augmented by Kern River
Gas

Transmission Company (KRGT). The Company also relies on deliveries from
Northwest Pipeline Corporation to serve the towns of Moab, Monticello and Dutch John;
Williams Field Services to serve the towns of LaBarge and Big Piney in Wyoming; and
Colorado Int
erstate Gas Company to serve the town of Wamsutter. These pipeline
systems and costs are part of the modeling process discussed in other IRP sections. This
section will focus on Questar Gas' local distribution system.


Questar Gas builds steady
-
state and

unsteady
-
state Gas Network Analysis (GNA)
system models each year to account for changes in piping facilities and customer growth.
The Company completes these models in April of each year, using year
-
end data from the
year before, and updates them to in
clude facilities and demands as of February of the
current year. Then, Questar Gas adjusts the models to match the predicted demand for
the following year based on the growth projections discussed elsewhere in this report.
The modeling results provided i
n this report are based on the 2011
-
2012 models which
were created in April 2011.


Questar Gas uses these GNA models to perform system analysis to help meet
future capacity requirements while maintaining system reliability. Each time Questar
Gas builds t
he models its engineering department checks them for accuracy and then
reviews them
to
determine any need for system improvements, supply changes, or
contracts revisions. The models can then be expanded to meet any analysis needs
including planning and op
erational analysis, creating models at different temperatures
and creating different types of models from the standard system model.




4
-
2


Ongoing and Future System Analysis Projects



High Pressure (HP) Mapping System (APDM)


Questar Gas created the latest
version of the HP GNA models from the high
pressure mapping system (APDM). As a result, the model is inclusive of all
improvements that have been completed by April 2011. This is an improvement over
past models that had to be updated manually.


Contingen
cy Planning


Questar Gas uses the HP system models to develop contingency plans for
potential emergency scenarios. Questar Gas’ engineering and pipeline compliance
groups coordinate to incorporate the various scenarios into the emergency plan. Questar
Ga
s’ engineering department conducts modeling using the unsteady
-
state model to
determine the system impact and time required to make changes to maintain system
integrity or enact emergency procedures. While it may not be possible to model every
possible sce
nario, it is beneficial to prepare general plans that can be tailored to specific
events.


Operational Models


Another way to prepare for unforeseen scenarios is to develop and maintain
operational models of the system. Questar Gas maintains these model
s to represent
current actual conditions that exist in the system at temperatures that are likely to exist
with the system conditions. Questar Gas’ engineers review these models on an ongoing
basis with Questar Gas’ gas control, gas supply, marketing, oper
ations, and measurement
and control departments in order to inform them of expected system conditions.



System Modeling and Reinforcement


Questar Gas engineering department utilizes steady
-
state Intermediate High
Pressure (IHP) models to analyze the imp
rovements needed to maintain adequate
pressures in the IHP systems. Questar Gas uses these models to identify the required
location and sizing of new mains and/or regulator stations. Questar Gas also uses the
models to compare the required flow from the
regulator stations to the maximum flow of
the existing stations. This analysis provides Questar Gas with the information necessary
to determine what reinforcements it should construct each year. Based on the modeling
results, Questar Gas constructs a n
umber of mains and new stations, and upgrades a few
existing stations.


Analyzing the HP system models is much more complex than analyzing the IHP
system. Engineers must consider gate stations, existing supply contracts, supply
availability, line pack, and the piping system in conducting the HP analysis. Because

4
-
3


larger HP pr
ojects take much longer to complete, Questar gas must also identify the
need for such improvements much earlier than with IHP projects. Additionally, Questar
Gas and Questar Pipeline collaborate to identify model inputs to be certain that Questar
Pipeline
’s interstate pipeline system can provide the upstream capacity and access to
supplies to meet Questar Gas’ supply needs.



Model Validation


Questar Gas tested the accuracy of the steady
-
state GNA models using pressure
data and demand comparisons. Que
star Gas’ engineers built steady
-
state models to
represent the system conditions on January 11, 2011 using actual data from that day
(verification day). Model settings were adjusted to match the actual conditions for this
day. The modeled pressures were
compared to actual pressures at key points and were
all found to be within 7% of the actual pressures on that day. Based on this analysis, the
models are considered accurate.


Questar Gas also compared the modeled demand with the daily recorded
deliveries

for the same validation day at the gate stations. The results of this analysis
showed that the demand the model predicted was within approximately 10% of the actual
deliveries for the verification day. This difference is likely due to the fact that the s
teady
-
state model does not include line pack and does not account for any lost and unaccounted
for gas. Actual system flows would provide for some line pack in the system. The results
of the comparisons confirm the accuracy of the steady
-
state models.


Questar Gas verified the unsteady
-
state models in the same manner as the steady
-
state models. Questar Gas reproduced the same verification day in the model using the
weather zone specific heating degree days. Questar Gas then matched the gate station
flow
s and pressures as closely as possible
.
The Central and Northern Regions are the
largest connected high pressure system in the Questar Gas system with 7 gate stations and
2 pressure zones. There are three smaller isolated systems which also require an uns
teady
state model analysis: Summit/Wasatch, Eastern, and Southern. This analysis has 47
pressure verification points as well as the known pressures and flows from the gate
stations. None of the pressure differences at any of the verification points have
error
values higher than 6.85%, when compared to the actual minimum and average pressures.
The results of the comparisons confirm the accuracy of the unsteady
-
state models.



Gate Station Flows vs. Capacity


In order to accurately represent actual system conditions, Questar Gas adjusted
the station settings to match supply contracts at each of the Meter Allocation Points
(MAPs). This allows Questar Gas to analyze the system based on supply conditions in
order

to determine capacity requirements of the gate stations as well as the operational
capacity of the piping system.



4
-
4


It is also important to stay within the pressure and flow parameters for each of
the stations when setting up the system models. In order

to do so, Questar Gas
completed a capacity study for each of the gate stations. Questar Gas calculated the
required hourly and daily flow capacities for each station based on set pressures in the
system model and inlet pressures provided by the Questar P
ipeline’s systems engineering
group and those identified in interconnect agreements with other suppliers.


The current models reflect the existing capacity of the Hunter Park station in
West Valley City. The station capacity is limited by 250 mcf through the KRGT
facilities. Additional changes are planned for this station to remediate some operational
concerns
. The current models also include the upgrades to the KRGT facilities at Central
station in Central Utah. The resulting station capacity is 30 mcf. The Moab stations are
still near capacity and being monitored for possible upgrade scenarios in the near
future.
Sunset Station, near the mouth of Weber Canyon also continues to be constrained due to
the upstream piping of main line 3 (ML 3) on the Questar Pipeline system. Questar
Pipeline is currently replacing ML 3 which will allow increased deliveries to

Sunset
Station.



System Pressures


Once Questar Gas verifies the system models and sets them up to match the
contractual obligations and station capacities, Questar Gas can use the models to analyze
the system pressures to ensure the system has adequat
e pressures to supply all of the
Questar Gas customers. Questar Gas uses the peak models for this analysis. The peak
models include all firm loads for both sales and transport customers. Questar Gas uses
the daily contract limits for customers with sig
ned contracts and assumes that
interruptible customers are off system for purposes of the peak models.


Northern


The Northern Region includes the main system around Salt Lake City and
northern Utah, including Salt Lake County, Tooele County, Summit Count
y, Utah
County, Wasatch County, Davis County, Morgan County, Weber County, Cache County,
and Box Elder County. Questar Gas serves this area through interconnects with Questar
Pipeline at MAP 164 through the Hyrum, Little Mountain, Payson, Porter’s Lane,
and
Sunset stations. Questar Gas also serves the area through multiple smaller taps from
Questar Pipeline (MAP 162) and KRGT at Hunter Park and Riverton stations.


The ability to take gas from both Questar Pipeline and KRGT allows Questar Gas
to meet its
peak
-
day obligations to the Northern Region. The gas supply at the two KRGT
gate stations makes up the difference between Questar Gas’ peak day obligations and the
contracted delivery capacity from Questar Pipeline.


In the steady
-
state model, the low poin
t in the main northern system is 260 psig at
the endpoint of FL 62, near Alta. The pressure at this point is just lower than the location

4
-
5


usually considered the lowest
-
pressure point in the system, the endpoint of FL 36 in West
Jordan. The low point at W
est Jordan is 266 psig. Both of these pressures are
substantially higher than our lowest allowable pressure of 125 psig.


The steady
-
state pressures at some of the key locations in the northern/central
systems are shown in Table 1 and Figure 1. Questar

Gas models these pressures on a
peak day at system endpoints, low points in the area or just important intersections.
Questar Gas builds steady
-
state models using average daily flows that most closely
represent average pressures for the peak day. The uns
teady
-
state models profile the load
throughout the day and represent the pressure fluctuations throughout the peak day.


Table 1


Key Pressures

Location

Pressure (psig)

Endpoint of FL 74
-

Preston

282

Endpoint of FL 36
-

West Jordan

266

Endpoint of FL
62
-

Alta

260

Endpoint of FL 29
-

Nucor Steel

290

Endpoint of FL 70
-
ATK TS (80/0)

303

Endpoint of FL 63
-

Hogup Pumping Site

321

Endpoint of FL 48
-

Tooele Army Depot

323

Procter & Gamble Paper Products Company

310

Intersection FL 29 & FL 23
-

Brigham City

359


























4
-
6


Figure 1


Key Pressures




Figure 2 shows the pressure variations at several end points in

the northern part of
the system using the unsteady
-
state model. The lowest pressure is 134 psig at the end of
FL 51 at Great Salt Lake Minerals/Pacificorp’s Little Mountain Plant in Ogden. This is a
good example of the difference between the steady
-
state
(average) pressures versus the
unsteady
-
state (profiled) pressures. Questar Gas is considering improvements in this area
because of the low pressures the model has shown. There may also be ways to address
the pressure concerns based on changes to supply

pressures to the system.

Preston

Payson

West Desert

Tooele


Army Depot

North Temple
Station

Brigham
City

Alta

Little Mtn


4
-
7



Figure 2
-

Northern Area Critical Point Pressures


Figures 3 and 4 show the pressures at the end points in the central part of the
system and in Summit County. The lowest pressure in the central area is 158 psig at the
end of FL

36 in West Jordan. Questar Gas is planning to construct an improvement this
year to increase the pressure at this location.

Figure 3
-

Central Area Critical Point Pressures



The lowest pressure in the Summit County area is predicted to be 180 psig in
Charleston at the end of FL 56. Questar Gas is monitoring this area closely to plan for a
n

improvement to meet growth in the area.

100
125
150
175
200
225
250
275
300
325
350
375
400
425
450
475
500
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Pressure (psig)

Time (hrs)

Endpoint of FL 70 -
ATK
Sunset
Porters Lane
Endpoint of FL 74 -
Preston
Little Mtn FL21
Proctor and Gamble
Hyrum
Endpoint of FL 29 -
Nucor Steel
Hill AFB
GSL Minerals
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
275
300
325
350
375
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Pressure (psig)

Time (hrs)

Mag Corp
Hunter Park
West Jordan
Provo
Endpoint of FL 62 -
Alta
Payson
LittleMtn FL4
Endpoint of FL 63
Riverton
North Temple

4
-
8


Figure 4
-

Summit County Critical Point Pressures



Eastern (North)


The Eastern (North) Region includes Duchesne
County, Uintah County, Carbon
County, and Emery County, including Price and Vernal. The Vernal system is one of the
systems that was previously owned by Utah Gas. This area is served from Questar
Pipeline by multiple taps through MAP 163
.


The pressure a
t the end of feeder line 90 (FL 90) is being monitored. The low
point is predicted to be 160 psig at the regulator station there during a peak event. Prior
to the 2010/2011 heating season, Questar Gas modified the then
-
existing FL 90 to allow
it to opera
te at increased pressures (the same pressures as FL 100). Given that this
location is still experiencing low pressure, and that Questar Gas is anticipating some
growth, it may be necessary to construct further improvements to maintain adequate
pressures.



Figure 5


Eastern

Critical Point Pressures


100
125
150
175
200
225
250
275
300
325
350
375
400
425
450
475
500
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Pressure (psig)

Time (hrs)

Jeremy Ranch (FL
54)
Park City
Charleston
Heber (FL 15)
Promontory
Francis
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
275
300
325
350
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Pressure (psig)

Time (hrs)

Endpoint
Vernal 7
Blue Bell
Island Park
Vernal 1

4
-
9



Eastern (Northwest Pipeline)

The Eastern (Northwest Pipeline) Region includes Moab, Monticello and Dutch
John. Utah Gas previously owned the Moab system. Questar gas serves these areas from
Northwest
Pipeline by two stations in Moab, one station in Monticello, and one tap in
Dutch John.


The Eastern (Northwest Pipeline) systems are IHP systems and their pressures are
regulated to IHP pressure at the interconnects with Northwest Pipeline. Improvements
are ongoing to ensure the Monticello IHP system has adequate pressures.



Southern (Main System)


The Southern (Main System) Region encompasses the areas served by the
Indianola/Wecco/Central facilities including Richfield, Cedar City and St. George.
Q
uestar Gas serves these areas from Questar Pipeline at Indianola station through MAP
166 and from KRGT at Central and Wecco stations.


Using the steady
-
state model, the lowest pressure on a peak day is 352 psig on a
spur in St. George. This seems fairly
high compared to the pressures in the northern
system, but it is important to note that this system operates at higher pressures than most
of the Questar Gas system (625
-
700 psig). Using the unsteady
-
state model, the lowest
pressure in the southern area i
s 187 psig in St. George.

Questar Gas is monitoring this area for growth and resulting low pressures.
Questar Gas is designing a new pressure station in Santa Clara on the 8
-
inch feeder line
from the KRGT interconnect at Central Station, a pressure increa
se for feeder line 81 (FL
81) and compression at Central Station, in order to meet the growing demand in this
area. Questar gas is monitoring growth in the area and will construct this improvement
when it becomes necessary.











4
-
10


Figure 6


Southern System Critical Point Pressures



Southern (KRGT Taps)


The Southern Region includes towns in Juab County, Millard County, Beaver
County, Iron County, and Washington County (all of the towns served south of Payson
station that are not part of the Indianola/Wecco/Central system). These areas are all
single feed

systems served by KRGT.


The system in this area is made up of separate systems with individual taps from
KRGT. All of the segments in this area have adequate pressures and do not require any
improvement to meet the existing demand.


Wyoming




The Wyom
ing Region includes Rock Springs, Evanston, Lyman, Kemmerer,
Baggs, and Granger. These areas are served from Questar Pipeline through MAP 168,
MAP 169, and MAP 177; from Colorado Interstate Gas (CIG) at Wamsutter; and from
Williams Field Services (WFS) at
LeBarge and Big Piney.


Due to past improvements, the pressures in this system are adequate. There are,
however, plans in place to add a new gate station to provide redundant feed from another
supplier to this area. The new station will connect Questar G
as’ system with CIG in
Rock Springs and is scheduled to be completed prior to the 2011/2012 heating season.



0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Pressure (psig)

Time (hrs)

Endpoint of FL 71
Intersection of FL
71 & FL 81
Central
Richfield
Wecco
Hurricane
St George Power
Indianola

4
-
11


Questar Gas 2010 High Pressure (HP) Projects

In 2010 Questar Gas completed several HP projects of note. Typically, such
projects are completed
for one of three reasons: general system reinforcement, relocation
and replacements, or system expansion. Each category of work is discussed in greater
detail below:


System Reinforcements
:


Questar Gas did not construct any general reinforcement project
s on its feeder line
system in 2010. However, Questar Gas constructed the following reinforcements
to
increase supply to the system. The gate station remodels were:


1.

Hunter Gate Station
: Hunter Gate Station is located at approximately
3500 South and 5800 West in West Valley City, and is one of two
interconnects between Questar Gas and KRGT in the Salt Lake Valley.
Questar Gas’ GNA modeling indicated that the capacity of Hunter Gate
Sta
tion needed to be increased to approximately 250 MMcf/D to meet
anticipated load growth. Questar Gas paid KRGT a sum of $354,000 for
the KRGT improvements required to increase the capacity of the station.
KRGT has completed the upgrades to meet this need
. Questar Gas had
previously modified its own facilities at the station in 2009 to meet the
capacity requirements.



2.

Central Gate Station
: Central Gate Station is located near St. George,
Utah. It is one of the two major interconnects between Questar
Gas and
KRGT in southern Utah (the other is at Wecco). GNA modeling indicated
that the capacity of the Central Gate Station needed to be increased to
approximately 30 MMcf/D to meet growing load demand in the area.
Questar Gas paid KRGT a sum of $199,500
to remodel its facilities and to
provide the required increase in capacity.
The project was completed in
September of 2010.
Questar Gas had previously upgraded its facilities in
2009 to meet the capacity requirements.


3.

Ruby Pipeline Gate Station:

I
n 2010, Questar Gas pursued a future
interconnect with the new Ruby Pipeline. Ruby Pipeline, LLC (Ruby) is
currently constructing a new 42
-
inch interstate pipeline that will cross
Questar Gas’ feeder line system near Brigham City, Utah. Questar Gas
condu
cted a GNA analysis of its northern system and determined that
there could be benefit to adding a new gate station off of the Ruby
Pipeline in the future.


In order to preserve the opportunity to install the future gate station and to
avoid substantial c
osts associated with such a station in the future, Questar
Gas paid Ruby to install a block valve and dual tap valve assembly near
Brigham City during the initial construction of the line. Questar Gas also

4
-
12


elected to purchase a 200’ x 350’ parcel of land
to accommodate the future
gate station. Questar Gas paid Ruby $155,000 to install the valve
assembly, and paid the land owner $60,000 for the parcel.


Relocations and Replacements:



Questar Gas relocated several HP facilities in 2010. The majority of t
hese
relocations were required as the result of conflict with Utah Department of Transportation
(UDOT) road projects. Questar Gas was reimbursed for a portion of the costs associated
with UDOT projects according to Utah Code Ann. § 72
-
6
-
116 (2010). In ar
eas where
Questar Gas owns facilities located within existing UDOT corridors (i.e. by permit),
Questar Gas receives 50% reimbursement on the relocation work. In areas where Questar
Gas owns facilities within rights
-
of
-
way that it owns, the reimbursement r
ate is 100%.



In addition to major HP relocations, Questar Gas also continued its feeder line
replacement program. The major HP relocations and replacements were:


1.

UDOT I
-
15 Core relocation, American Fork, Utah:

This project involved
the retirement of approximately 2,400 lf of FL 26 (20” diameter) and the
installation of approximately 6,020 lf of new 20” HP pipe along the 200
West Frontage Road in American Fork, Utah. This project was
reimbursed at the 50% leve
l. Questar Gas’ actual cost for this relocation
was $442,000.


2.

UDOT I
-
15 Core relocation, Spanish Fork, Utah:

This project involved
the retirement of approximately 1,200 lf of FL 26
-
21 (4” diameter) and the
installation of approximately 1,250 lf of new 6
” HP pipe near Williams
Lane in Spanish Fork, Utah. This project was reimbursed at the 50%
level. Questar Gas’ actual cost for this relocation was $71,000.


3.


UDOT I
-
15 Core relocation, Spanish Fork, Utah:

This project involved
relocating in
-
place approx
imately 25 lf of FL 26 near Sam White Lane in
American Fork, Utah. This will be reimbursed at the 50% level. Questar
Gas estimated that its cost for this relocation will be $95,000.


4.

Feeder Line Replacement Program, Utah:

Questar Gas continued its
Fe
eder Line replacement program in 2010. The replacement of FL 19 in
Ogden was completed with the replacement of approximately 53,000 lf of
20” HP pipe. The cost for this work in 2010 was $
26 million
. Questar
Gas also continued the replacement of sections

of FL 12 in Salt Lake City
with the replacement of 9,000 lf of 24” HP pipe. The cost for this work in
2010 was $9,200,000
.





4
-
13


System Capacity Conclusions


Questar Gas’ HP feeder line system is capable of meeting the current peak day
demands with adequate

supplies and pressures in the system. This system capacity
assessment is based on the fact that the gate stations have adequate capacity, the supply
contracts are adequate, and both the steady
-
state and unsteady
-
state models show that
system pressures do
not drop below the design minimum of 125 psig. The system will
continue to grow along with the demand and Questar Gas will conduct an analysis
annually to ensure that the system continues to meet the peak day needs.


Questar Gas is conducting analysis rel
ating to several system constraints
including the following:




Increasing demand in locations served by Questar Pipeline.
As demand
increases in areas served only by Questar Pipeline, Questar Gas must
increase deliveries on Questar Pipeline to those areas. As a result, the
volumes available from Questar Pipeline to the Wasatch Front could
decrease. Recent upgrades have incr
eased the capacity to the Hunter Park
interconnect (to 250 mmcfd) in order to meet increased supply
requirements, but it is likely that Questar Gas will need to procure
additional transportation to the Wasatch Front from either Questar
Pipeline or KRGT.




Increasing demand in the Northern and Central Regions.
Questar Gas is
considering installing new interconnects with Questar Pipeline, KRGT,
and/or Ruby Pipeline in order to meet the supply needs associated with
long term growth of the Northern and Central

Regions. Questar Gas is
also considering upgrading existing stations and procuring additional
supply contracts for areas experiencing growth.





Growth in the Southern Region.
Questar Gas’ Southern Region is
reaching capacity. As discussed in greater de
tail below, Questar Gas has
analyzed a variety of possibilities for reinforcing this system and will
continue to review this system in order to determine the appropriate timing
for the reinforcement.




Saratoga Springs growth.
Questar Gas is designing a

feeder line to
support system growth in Saratoga Springs.





Low Pressures in the Northern Region.
Questar Gas’ modeling shows that
pressures near the end of FL 51, in the Northern Region, are low and will
require improvements in the foreseeable future.

Questar Gas is
considering a variety of options to increase the pressures in that area
including a local replacement or an increase in supply pressures at one of
the sources feeding the area.



4
-
14




Growth in Vernal.
Additional growth in Vernal may result in t
he need to
reinforce FL 90. Questar Gas will monitor growth in the area in order to
determine when further reinforcement is appropriate.




Charleston Growth.
Questar Gas is planning improvements in the
Charleston area in Summit County. The timing and n
ature of this
reinforcement will be dictated by the growth in the area.




Maps reflecting peak day flow rates for each of the areas are contained in Exhibits 4.1
through 4.6.




DNG Action Plan


Questar Gas is currently planning and designing several
reinforcement and
replacement projects. Questar Gas also anticipates that several UDOT projects will
continue to require substantial relocation of company facilities in the near term. The
following is a brief description of the major projects anticipated

by Questar Gas in 2011
and beyond.


2011 Gate Station Projects


1.

Hunter Park Gate Station
: Questar Gas has been working on improving
the capacity and functionality of the Hunter Park Gate station for 3 years.
In 2009, Questar Gas increased the capacity
on its portion of the facility
by installing a larger control valve (3” to 6”). In 2010, Questar Gas paid
KRGT to increase capacity on its portion of the facility to match Questar
Gas’ increased capacity. With these improvements in place the capacity
of
Hunter Park has been increased to approximately 250 MMcf/D.


In 2011, the design focus has shifted from improving capacity at the gate
station, to improving the functionality and operations at the facility. The
anticipated scope for these modifications in
clude adding a new line heater
and heater building, removing the existing turbine meter set and replacing
it with an ultrasonic meter run, adding a larger control room for telecom
and automation equipment, adding gas detection to all the buildings,
adding
a dual tap onto FL 11, and perhaps acquiring additional property at
the station.


Due to the increasing capacity of the station, the existing line heater is
undersized and needs to be replaced. The existing line heater currently
has a capacity of approxim
ately 60 MMcf/D. In recent years, KRGT has
been compressing the gas in its lines at its compressor station near 1700
South and 5600 West. This compression has resulted in high enough
delivery temperatures at Hunter Park that the existing line heater has
not

4
-
15


been needed. However, in recent years KRGT increased the MAOP on its
system to 1,333 psig and looped its line near Bountiful and North Salt
Lake. The increased delivery pressure, alone, could result in a need for
additional heating at Hunter Park bec
ause significant temperature loss
occurs during pressure reduction. Additionally, the looping of the line
means that KRGT may not have to compress gas in the same manner it has
in the past, and
that
may result in lower delivery temperatures to Hunter
Park
. Taken together, these operational changes will likely require the
addition of a line heater at Hunter Park.


In addition to the heater modification, Questar Gas is planning to remove
the three existing turbine meters and replace them with a single ultra
sonic
meter. The current configuration is loud and the meters have had several
maintenance issues. KRGT has permitted Questar Gas to use its metering
signal to run its odorizing facilities and Questar Gas is installing the
ultrasonic meter as a back
-
up t
o this configuration.


Questar Gas is also looking for additional property near the station in
order to maintain proper access and to eliminate the risk of encroachment
by neighboring residential developments. At present, the station is close
to residenti
al developments and Questar Gas believes it appropriate to
obtain additional property.


In 2011, Questar Gas will continue planning the facility improvements and
order any long
-
lead time items. Currently Questar Gas has $800,000
budgeted for this year’s w
ork. Questar Gas anticipates construction of the
improvements will occur in 2012. Questar Gas has estimated the 2012
costs at $2,700,000. Questar Gas estimates that the first year revenue
requirement for this project will be $
470,000 (if the total cost
is $3.5
million)
.



2011 Feeder Line Projects


1.

St. George Reinforcement
: Questar Gas evaluated and analyzed a variety
of alternatives for providing reinforcement to its Southern region, serving
St. George. After preliminary analysis of several options, Questar Gas
narrowed its focus to the three most viable options: a compre
ssor station
option and two pipeline options.


The first option consists of pressure testing and inspecting FL 81 and then
adding compression
at the Central Station in order to increase the
operating pressure FL 81 from 700 psig to 1000 psig
. This incre
ased inlet
pressure would allow significantly more flow to pass through the line.
For ease of reference, Questar Gas refers to this as the “Compression
Alternative.”


4
-
16


The second option involves the construction of a new 24” diameter HP
pipeline that woul
d extend approximately 10 miles from a new KRGT
gate station near Jackson Springs, through the land owned by the Shivwits
Band of the Paiute Indians (the Shivwits), and connecting to Questar Gas’
existing feeder line system near Ivins, Utah. For ease of r
eference,
Questar Gas refers to this alternative as the “Shivwits Alternative.”


The third option involved the construction of a 24” HP pipeline looping
Questar Gas’ existing FL 81.


After thorough analysis and review, Questar Gas determined that it wou
ld
pursue the Compression Alternative and that the Shivwits Alternative was
the next best option.


The Compression Alternative and the Shivwits Alternative are comparable
in a number of ways. Both provide the same increase in capacity. Both
are compara
ble in terms of service quality, reliability and customer
impact. From a customer’s perspective, either alternative would provide
the necessary capacity to ensure safe and reliable service to the St. George
area.


However, a cost comparison shows that the

Compression Alternative is
vastly preferable to the Shivwits Alternative. Questar Gas’ engineers
estimate that the Compression Alternative will cost approximately
$22,300,000 and, Questar Gas estimates that the first year revenue
requirement for this pro
ject would be $
3.6 million
. Questar Gas estimates
that the Shivwits Alternative would exceed $45,000
,
000.


The Shivwits alternative poses some other cost risks that, at present,
cannot be quantified. Specifically, federal regulations prevent the
Shivwit
s from granting a perpetual easement across tribal lands.
Additionally, the Shivwits properties are not subject to condemnation.
Accordingly, rights
-
of
-
way crossing tribal lands are substantially more
expensive than rights
-
of
-
way crossing private lands,
and they must be
renewed, again at significant cost. Other pipelines have also experienced
increased operating costs for facilities on tribal lands as a result of tribal
ordinances and fees that change, and can increase, over time.


The Compression altern
ative also provides flexibility in planning for
future growth by preserving both the Shivwits Alternative and an
opportunity to loop FL 81 as options for providing additional capacity in
the future. The Compression Alternative provides a long term advanta
ge
(after looping) of maintaining a higher pressure source closer to the load
center in St. George. The pipeline will allow for the absorption of load
swings.



4
-
17


For the reasons set forth above, Questar Gas is pursuing the Compression
Alternative and plans
to spend roughly $350,000 during this IRP reporting
year.


Questar Gas anticipates constructing the reinforcement in 2013. However,
depending upon the load growth in the St. George area, the schedule for
construction could be accelerated to 2012 or delayed until some later date.
Questar Gas will continue to moni
tor growth in the area and evaluate the
schedule for the project.


Questar Gas is aware that Questar Pipeline is evaluating the possibility of
building an interstate pipeline into the area. Questar Gas will monitor this
development and, if Questar Pipel
ine offers still another alternative,
Questar Gas will evaluate that as a reinforcement option for this area.



2.

Utah Feeder Line Reinforcement Projects:

Questar Gas has continued its
planning and design of two feeder line projects in Utah. The projects are
required to reinforce flow into the towns of Saratoga Springs, Utah and
Charleston, Utah.


Charleston Feeder Line


Questar Gas analyzed several diff
erent pipeline options for reinforcing the
HP system in the Charleston area.


Most of these options involved the
construction of an approximately 4 mile long extension of 8” HP pipe
from Questar Gas’ existing FL 16 in Midway, Utah to the termination
point
in Charleston, Utah.


Questar Gas evaluated five routes for
constructability, right
-
of
-
way availability and cost.


The range of costs on
options ranged from approximately $2,000,000 to $3,200,000.


In addition to the options above, Questar Gas considered
another pipeline
option to reinforce the Charleston area. This option included constructing
approximately 8.5 miles of 12” HP pipeline from the current termination
of FL 99 near Francis, Utah along state road SR
-
32, and terminating with
a tie
-
in to Questa
r Gas’ FL 16 on state highway SR
-
40.


After GNA and costs analysis, Questar Gas determined that the best option
to reinforce Charleston would be to construct the 12” extension along SR
-
32. Although more expensive than the Midway options, this option
pro
vides redundant feed in the entire Heber Valley and improves pressures
into Park City, Utah. The 8” options discussed above only reinforced the
Charleston area of the Heber Valley, leaving the majority of the Heber
Valley on one
-
way feed. If one of these

options was chosen, subsequent
projects would be required to provide redundant feed into Heber and to

4
-
18


reinforce the HP system in Park City. The estimated cost for the preferred
8” option is approximately $2,000,000.


Questar Gas believes that the 12” SR
-
32 option solves the redundancy and
low
-
pressure issues with one project. In addition, due to the likely routing
of the feeder line, it is possible that Questar Gas could receive
right
-
of
-
way

assistance or contributions from residential developers in the
area.
Questar Gas
estimate
s

that the 12” project will cost approximately
$9,000,000 to complete.


Questar Gas estimates that the first year revenue
requirement for this project will be $
1.4 million
.



Questar Gas is currently pre
-
engineering this project
and finalizing route
options.


Based on current growth and load projections for the area,
Questar Gas estimates that the project will need to be constructed
sometime in 2013 or 2014.


In the near term, Questar Gas will finalize its
pre
-
engineering of the p
roject, including route selection and phase
-
1
environmental work, and continue to monitor the area for load growth.


Saratoga Springs Feeder Line


Questar Gas currently serves Saratoga Springs via its IHP system. The
nearest regulator station is
approximately five miles from Saratoga
Springs, and the end of the Saratoga Springs system is nearly nine miles
from the station. The IHP mains serving this area have limited ability to
meet the load demand without additional HP support.


Questar Gas ana
lyzed eight options for providing HP service to Saratoga
Springs. Most of these options involved tying into the company’s FL85
and extending service south. Questar Gas also considered a scenario
involving building a new gate station off of KRGT and exten
ding a new
feeder line but this option was not cost effective. Likewise,
Questar Gas
considered an

option that involved purchasing the Eagle Mountain system
and running a new feeder line
but this alternative
was not economically
viable.


The remaining opt
ions all involved extending service from Questar Gas’
interconnect with KRGT located on state road SR
-
73. Accordingly, any of
the remaining options would require remodeling of this gate station.
Questar Gas is in communication with KRGT to evaluate altern
atives for
such a remodel. Additionally, FL 85 has limited capacity available to
serve Saratoga Springs.

After GNA and engineering analysis, Questar Gas determined the best
option involves replacing approximately 7,400 lf of FL 85 with 20” HP
pipe, and
extending approximately 20,000 lf of 12” HP pipe to the south,

4
-
19


into Saratoga Springs. This option would also require a new HP regulator
station at the termination point of the 12” HP main.


Questar Gas is currently working on engineering and geotechnical

evaluation of this option. The current cost estimate for the above scope of
work, including the K
RGT

gate station re
-
model is $7,900,000.

Questar
Gas estimates that the first year revenue requirement for this project will
be $
1.2 million
.



The next best

option was very similar to the preferred alternative, but was
a substantially more expensive. This option involved replacing the same
section of FL 85 and building additional 12” HP pipe to Saratoga Springs,
following a different route, through city stre
ets rather than through open
fields. While this option would reduce the need for Questar Gas to acquire
private right
-
of
-
way for the project, is would add approximately 1.9 miles
to the length. The estimated cost for this option was approximately
$10,000
,000 (a revenue requirement of
$1.6 million
). As a result of this
increase in cost, Questar Gas elected to pursue the shorter option.


Questar Gas is aware that Questar Pipeline is evaluating the possibility of
building an interstate pipeline into the are
a. Questar Gas will monitor this
development and, if Questar Pipeline offers still another alternative,
Questar Gas will evaluate that as a reinforcement option for this area.



3.

Heber City HP Reinforcement
: Questar Gas has been monitoring the IHP
pressures on the east side of Heber City for several years. In 2008,
Questar Gas completed the preliminary design of a 2
-
mile HP extension
for its FL 16 on the north end of Heber City to a proposed regulator stat
ion
in the east side of Heber City. This regulator station would reinforce the
IHP system in the area and provide the additional capacity needed.


The project was initially slated to be constructed in 2009 and again in
2011. However, slow load growth i
n the area allowed for the project to be
delayed. Current load projections show that the project may need to be
completed in either 2012 or 2013. The estimated cost for this project is
approximately $2,300,000. Questar Gas estimates that the first yea
r
revenue requirement for this project will be $
340,000
.


4.

Wyoming HP Reinforcement Projects
: Questar Gas analyzed three
potential HP projects in Wyoming, beginning in 2010. One in the town of
LeBarge, one for the town of Big Piney, and one in Rock Spring
s.






4
-
20


LeBarge Replacement


Questar Gas serves the town of LeBarge is served from its FL 31. FL 31
is served by a Williams Field Services gathering line. Pressure in the
gathering line has been steadily decreasing as production in the area
decreases. Cu
rrently the pressures in this line drop as low as 120 psig.


Questar Gas conducted an engineering study and determined could
maintain proper pressures in its systems (HP and IHP) by removing the
regulation at the head of FL 31. In order to do so, Questar
Gas will have
to verify the strength and condition of FL 31. FL 31 was originally
installed and pressure tested to establish an MAOP high enough to match
that of the Williams Field Services line. In 2011, Questar Gas will
evaluate the condition of this F
L 31 via leak and cathodic surveys and
install over pressure protection at the end of the line. The estimated cost
for this work is approximately $50,000
-
$75,000.


Big Piney




Questar Gas serves the town of Big Piney utilizing volumes from a
Williams

Field Services gathering line. Questar Gas’ FL 49 is
approximately 16 miles long and ties into the Williams Field services line.
The line is constructed of both 2” and 3” sections. The IHP demand in
Big Piney is growing. In order to meet this demand,
Questar Gas needs to
increase the delivery capacity of FL 49.


Questar Gas conducted an engineering study and determined that it could
increase capacity of FL 49 to operate at a higher pressure. However, in
order to do this, the line must be pressure test
ed to establish the
appropriate MAOP’s. In 2011, Questar Gas will pressure test the Big
Piney line. The estimated cost for this work is $55,000.


Rock Springs


Questar Gas has been evaluating options for creating redundant feed into
Rock Springs. The city of Rock Springs is currently served by two
sources. The first is FL 107, which ties into a Questar Pipeline main line
at the Kanda/Coleman compressor station.

The second source into Rock
Springs is FL 37, which ties into the same Questar Pipeline main line at
Kent’s Ranch. If flow was interrupted on FL 107, FL 37 or the Questar
Pipeline main line, Rock Springs could suffer service interruptions.


Questar Ga
s analyzed three options for this project. The first option was
to extend FL 107 approximately 7 miles to the east and tie
-
in to a different
Questar Pipeline source at North Baxter. The second option involved
extending FL 37 to the north and tie
-
in with
FL 107 near Elk Street in

4
-
21


Rock Springs. Questar Gas analyzed the alternatives and determined that
neither option was an economically viable solution to the problem.


In order to provide redundancy to Rock Springs, Questar Gas opted to tap
a Colorado Inter
state Gas (CIG) line and install a new feeder line that will
intersect with FL 107. In 2011, Questar Gas will construct a new gate
station that interconnects with CIG and install approximately 5,500 lf of
8” HP feeder line. Questar Gas has estimated the
total cost of the project
to be approximately $2,800,000. Questar Gas estimates that the first year
revenue requirement for this project will be $
280,000
.


5.

Feeder Line Replacement Program:


Questar Gas is continuing its Feeder Line replacement progra
m in 2011
with replacements planned on FL 12, FL 17, FL 18, and FL 25. Pursuant
to the Settlement Stipulation and the Utah Commission’s bench order
approving the Settlement Stipulation, in Docket No. 09
-
057
-
16, the
Company will file an infrastructure repl
acement plan detailing the planned
projects, the anticipated costs and other relevant information.


6.

UDOT Required Relocations:

Questar Gas anticipates the following HP
relocation projects in 2011:




UDOT’s Mountain View Corridor project will require ni
ne HP
relocations on Questar Gas’ FL 10, FL 34 and FL 36. The
relocations vary in length from a few hundred feet up to
approximately 1,500 feet. The estimated total cost for these
relocations is approximately $3,370,000. Questar Gas will be
reimbursed f
or a portion of the costs associated with UDOT
projects according to Utah Code Ann. § 72
-
6
-
116 (2010). After
reimbursement, Questar Gas’ anticipated costs are approximately
$1,381,000. Questar Gas estimates that the first year revenue
requirement for t
his project will be $
140,000
.


In addition to the above projects, Questar Gas is also continuously working on
reinforcing its system to alleviate low pressure areas and increase service reliability. One
such project involves the end point of FL 36 in West

Jordan, Utah. As noted above, this
area has the lowest pressures of the Questar Gas HP system. Questar Gas has been
working with West Jordan City to replace approximately 500 lf of 3” HP pipe with new
6” HP pipe. This project will effectively remove th
e “bottleneck” in the system and
alleviate the low pressures in the area. This project is scheduled to be completed in 2011
,
and is expected to cost approximately $75,000.






4
-
22


IHP Projects:


1.

Monticello Project, Utah:

Questar Gas continues to work toward
increasing the MAOP of large portions of the IHP system in Monticello,
Utah from 25 psig to 60 psig in order to improve delivery pressures within
the system. Questar Gas will up
-
rate the system by either pressure testing
the existing lines or replacing th
e old lines with newer, stronger pipe. This
project began in 2008 and was approximately 60% complete at the end of
2010.


In 2011, Questar Gas plans to complete the up
-
rate of another 20% of the
system. The estimated cost to perform this work is $1,100,0
00 including
replacement mains and services. Questar Gas estimates that the first year
revenue requirement for this project will be $
110,000
. Questar Gas
anticipates the Monticello up
-
rate project will last through 2012.


2.

Kemmerer/Diamondville, Wyoming

Replacement
: In 2008, Questar Gas
implemented a replacement program under which major portions of the
Kemmerer/Diamondville systems are being replaced.


In 2011, Questar Gas plans to replace approximately 46,000 lf of main and
511 services at an estima
ted cost of $ 2,607,000. Questar Gas estimates
that the first year revenue requirement for this project will be $
260,000
.



2012 and 2013 Projects:




In 2012, Questar Gas anticipates installing the Hunter Park improvements
that were detailed above.




In
2012, Questar Gas anticipates constructing the Saratoga Springs
reinforcement detailed above.




In 2012, Questar Gas plans to continue the Monticello up
-
rate project.




In 2012, Questar Gas plans to complete the Kemmerer/Diamondville
replacement program.
Questar plans to replace approximately 30,000 lf of
main and 364 services at an estimated cost of $1,900,000. Depending on
weather and construction crew availability, the work may be accelerated
and completed in 2011.




In 2013, Questar Gas may install the

St. George reinforcement detailed
above.




In 2013, Questar Gas plans to install the Charleston reinforcement detailed
above.


4
-
23





In 2013, Questar Gas plans to install the Heber reinforcement detailed
above.




In 2013, Questar Gas will reinforce FL 90 in Vern
al. The scope of this
project has not yet been determined.




In 2013, Questar Gas will reinforce FL 51 in northern Utah. The scope of
this project has not yet been determined.



Integrity Management Plan Activities and Associated Costs


Overview


Questar
Gas continues to implement integrity activities for transmission lines as
originally mandated by the “Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002” and later codified
in the Federal Regulations (see 49 CFR Part 192 Subpart O). Under this regulatory
framework,
Questar Gas must identify all high consequence areas along the segments of
feeder lines that are defined as transmission lines
1
. Once these high consequence areas
are defined, Questar Gas must calculate a risk score for each segment located in the high
co
nsequence area. Questar Gas then sums up these risk scores for each unique feeder
line. These risk scores

establish the baseline and set

the priority for assessment for
integrity. Questar Gas verifies high consequence areas and calculates the risk score

annually. Questar Gas has ten years
2

to complete the baseline assessment of all segments
in high consequence areas.


The transmission integrity rules also require Questar Gas to conduct additional
preventive and mitigative measures on feeder lines in hig
h consequence areas and class
3

3 and 4 locations. These additional measures include monitoring excavations (excavation
standby) near the feeder lines and performing semi
-
annual leak surveys. Other integrity
activities include annual high consequence area

validation, pipeline centerline survey and
the day
-
to
-
day administration of the program.


On December 4, 2009, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) issued the final rule titled: “Integrity Management Program for
Gas Distribut
ion Pipelines.” This final rule became effective on February 12, 2010, with
implementation required by August 2, 2011.


The distribution integrity management rule requires operators to develop, write,
and implement a distribution integrity management pr
ogram with the following elements:




1

Transmission Lines are those feeder lines (or segments of feeder lines) that are operating (i.e. MAOP) at
or above 20% SMYS.

2

The baseline assessment must be completed by 12/17/2012 (49 CFR §192.921 (d)).

3

Class location as defined by 49 CFR Part 192 (§
192.5)


4
-
24



Knowledge; identify threats; evaluate and rank risks; identify and implement
measures to address risks; measure performance, monitor results, and evaluate
effectiveness; periodically evaluate and improve program; and re
port results.


Transmission Integrity Management


Costs


See attached table (Table 1
-

Transmission Integrity Management Costs) for
details on the anticipated costs associated with transmission integrity management.


Baseline Assessment Plan


The baseline
assessment plan prescribes the methods that will be used to assess
each high consequence area segment. These methods are determined by the known or
anticipated threats to these segments. Currently the threats on the pipeline include
external corrosion, i
nternal corrosion, and third party damage. The assessment methods
utilized to address these threats are external corrosion direct assessment (ECDA), internal
corrosion direct assessment (ICDA), direct visual examination, and inline inspection.


External C
orrosion Direct Assessment (ECDA)


ECDA is intended to evaluate the integrity of pipeline segments for the threat of
external corrosion, including segments of cased gas transmission pipelines. Questar Gas
may identify other types of damage during the
assessment process. In those cases
Questar Gas must document the damage and use other suitable assessment methodologies
to evaluate the integrity of the pipeline segments. Refer to Figure 1 for an overview of
the ECDA process.


The ECDA methodology is a
four
-
step process requiring integration of pre
-
assessment data, data from multiple indirect field inspections, and data from pipe surface
examinations. The four steps of the process are:


1)

Pre
-
Assessment
-

The Pre
-
Assessment step utilizes historic and rece
nt data
to determine whether ECDA is feasible, identify appropriate indirect
inspection tools, and define ECDA regions.


2)

Indirect Inspection
-

The Indirect Inspection step utilizes above ground
inspections to identify and define the severity of coating fau
lts, diminished
cathodic protection, and areas where corrosion may have occurred or may
be occurring. Questar Gas utilizes a minimum of two indirect inspection
tools over the entire pipeline segment to provide improved detection
reliability across the wid
e variety of conditions encountered along a
pipeline right
-
of
-
way. Indications from indirect inspections are
categorized according to severity.


4
-
25



3)

Direct Examination
-

The Direct Examination step includes analyses of
pre
-
assessment data and indirect inspect
ion data to prioritize indications
based on the likelihood and severity of external corrosion. This step
includes excavation of prioritized sites for pipe surface evaluations
resulting in validation or re
-
ranking of the prioritized indications.
During
th
is step,
Questar Gas re
-
evaluates high priority areas with corrosion
damage and consider
s which should be subject to
further action.


4)

Post
-
Assessment
-

The Post
-
Assessment step utilizes data collected from
the previous three steps to assess the effectivene
ss of the ECDA process
and determine reassessment intervals and provide feedback for continuous
improvement.


Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment (ICDA)


ICDA is a process to predict the most likely areas of internal corrosion, including
those caused by c
hemical and microbiologically induced corrosion. ICDA focuses on
directly examining locations at which internal corrosion is most likely to occur. Refer to
Figure 2 for an overview of the ICDA process.


The basis of ICDA is that detailed examination of t
he most susceptible locations
along a pipeline where liquids would first accumulate provides information about the
downstream condition of the pipeline. If the locations most likely to accumulate liquids
have not corroded, other downstream locations that
are less likely to accumulate liquids
may be considered free from corrosion. ICDA relies on the ability to identify locations
most likely to accumulate liquids.


The ICDA methodology is a four
-
step process that is intended to assess the threat
of
internal corrosion in pipelines and assist in verifying pipeline integrity.


1)

Pre
-
Assessment: In the Pre
-
Assessment step, Questar Gas collects and
utilizes historic and recent data to determine whether ICDA is feasible and
to define ICDA regions.


2)

ICDA
Region Identification: The ICDA Region Identification step covers
flow
-
modeling techniques, developing a pipeline elevation profile and
identifying sites where internal corrosion may be present.


3)

Detailed Examination: The Detailed Examination step integr
ates the pre
-
assessment data and ICDA Region Identification analyses to select
locations for detailed examinations. As part of this step, Questar Gas
excavates certain sites to evaluate for the presence of internal corrosion.


4)

Post
-
Assessment: In the P
ost
-
Assessment, Questar Gas utilizes data
collected from the previous three steps to assess the effectiveness of the

4
-
26


ICDA process, establish monitoring programs, and determine
reassessment intervals.



Visual Examination of Aboveground Pipe and Pipe in Vau
lts


Questar Gas assesses some pipes through visual examination including pipe that
falls in a high consequence area (HCA) and is aboveground, or pipe that, for other
reasons, cannot be assessed using external corrosion direct assessment methods (i.e.
span
s over waterways, pipe in vaults, etc.). Direct visual examination typically includes
the removal of external coating to check the pipe for external corrosion and physical
defects.


Inline Inspection


Questar Gas assesses some pipelines utilizing inline i
nspection devices called
“smart pigs.” Smart pigs are only appropriate when a line is constructed and configured
to allow for inline inspection. Only a few pipelines in Questar Gas’ system are currently
capable of utilizing this method of assessment.


Hi
gh Consequence Area (HCA) Validation


Each year, Questar Gas conducts a survey on all transmission lines to validate the
current high consequence areas as well as any new potential sites that may trigger new
high consequence areas. This information is
captured in Questar Gas’ mapping system
and is used to calculate high consequence areas on an annual basis.


Distribution Integrity Management


Costs


See attached table (Table 2
-

Distribution Integrity Management Costs) for details
on the anticipated cost
s associated with distribution integrity management.


Implementation


Questar Gas has completed their evaluation of this rule and has assigned a team to
look at the impacts of this rule and to begin the implementation. The first phase of
implementation is

establishing a written plan. Questar Gas anticipates completing this
task in the near future, and having it finalized prior to the August 2, 2011 deadline.




4
-
27


Pre
-
Assessment
Indirect
Inspection
Direct
Examination
Post Assessment
Data Collection
Data Analysis
Pre
-
Assessment
Report
Permitting and
Landowner
Notification
Indirect Inspection
Written Report
Dig Site Selection
Approval
Permitting and
Landowner
Notification
Excavation
Documentation
Backfill Site
/
Restoration
Data Analysis
Written Report
Field
Reconnaissance

Figure 1


ECDA Process Overview



4
-
28



Figure 2


ICDA Process
Overview


Pre
-
assessment
Data Collection
ID of Missing Data
SME Interviews
Data Analysis
Feasibility Analysis
Feasibility Analysis
Report
ICDA Region ID
Determine Critical
Flow Data
Determine Profile of
Pipeline
ID Location of Critical
Inclination Angles
Determine Bi
-
Directional Flow
Conditions
Detailed
Examination
Select Locations for
DE
Excavate
Conduct DE
Measure Corrosion
Anomalies
Remaining Strength
Evaluation
Root Cause Analysis
Additional
Examinations
Post Assessment
Effectiveness
Assessment
Reassessment
Interval
Monitoring Plan
Implement Additional
Measures
,
As Needed
Remediation
Site Reconnaissance
ICDA Performance
Report
4
-
29


Table 1


Transmission Integrity Management Costs

$ Thousands

Activity

2011

2012

2013

Transmission Integrity Management







ECDA (Utah Only)








Pre
-
Assessment









2011 (FL 10, 11, 14, 26, 28, 34, 35, 41, 48, 52, 85, 88) (41 HCA miles @ 2 K / mile)

82





2011 (Casings Only


䙌F6Ⱐ12Ⱐ13Ⱐ,9Ⱐ21Ⱐ,2⤠⠱8⁃慳 ng猩







2012 ⠠䙌‶Ⱐ12Ⱐ,3Ⱐ24Ⱐ,33, 46Ⱐ55Ⱐ,2⤠⠱5⁈䍁 m楬e猠䀠@⁋ 楬攩







2013⡆L‱8,19,21Ⱐ,2Ⱐ47⤠(44⁈䍁楬敳e䀠2 䬠/楬攩






䥮d楲散琠䥮獰散瑩ons






2011 ⡆䰠10,‱1Ⱐ14,′6Ⱐ28, 34Ⱐ35Ⱐ,1Ⱐ48Ⱐ,2Ⱐ85Ⱐ,8⤠(41⁈䍁楬敳e䀠30⁋ / m楬e)

1ⰲ30





2011 ⡃慳楮g猠snly


䙌F06,‱2,‱3Ⱐ19,′1Ⱐ22)
0.52⁈䍁楬e猠
$″0䬠/ m楬e)







2012 ⠠䙌‶Ⱐ12Ⱐ,3Ⱐ24Ⱐ,33, 46Ⱐ55Ⱐ,2⤠⠱5⁈䍁 m楬e猠䀠@0⁋ / m楬攩


450




2013⡆L‱8,19,21Ⱐ,2Ⱐ47⤠(44⁈䍁楬敳e䀠30䬯楬攩



1ⰳ20


D楲散琠䕸Em楮慴aons






2011 ⡆䰠64,‶5Ⱐ66,‶8Ⱐ69, 72Ⱐ84
 ⠱0⁥硣慶慴楯ns⁀ 12 䬠敡e)

120





2011 ⡆䰠64,‶5Ⱐ66,‶8Ⱐ69, 72Ⱐ84⤠(2⁣a獩sg猠䀠s00⁋ 敡⸩

200





2011 ⡆䰠10,‱1Ⱐ14,′6Ⱐ28, 34Ⱐ35Ⱐ,1Ⱐ48Ⱐ,2Ⱐ85Ⱐ,8⤠⠠30 數捡v慴aon猠s‱2⁋⁥愮a

360





2011 ⡆䰠10,‱1Ⱐ14,′6Ⱐ28, 34Ⱐ35Ⱐ,1Ⱐ48Ⱐ,2Ⱐ85Ⱐ,8⤠⠠8⁣慳楮g猠⁀‱00⁋
敡⸩

800





2011 ⡃慳楮g猠snly
-

䙌06Ⱐ12Ⱐ13Ⱐ,9Ⱐ21Ⱐ,2⤠⠸ 捡獩cg猠s䀠100⁋⁥愮a

800





2012 ⡆䰠6Ⱐ12,‱3Ⱐ24,″3Ⱐ46Ⱐ,5Ⱐ62⤠(12⁥硣慶慴aon猠䀠@2⁋ 敡⸩


144




2012 ⡆䰠6Ⱐ12,‱3Ⱐ24,″3Ⱐ46Ⱐ,5Ⱐ62⤠(4⁣慳楮gs⁀‱00 䬠敡⸩


400




2013⡆L‱8,

19Ⱐ,1Ⱐ22Ⱐ,7⤠⠶⁥硣xv慴aon猠䀠12⁋ 敡⸩







2013⡆L‱8Ⱐ19Ⱐ,1Ⱐ22Ⱐ,7⤠⠴⁣慳楮gs⁀‱00⁋ 敡⸩



400


Pos琠䅳A敳em敮e






2011 ⡆䰠10,‱1Ⱐ14,′6Ⱐ28, 34Ⱐ35Ⱐ,1Ⱐ48Ⱐ,2Ⱐ85Ⱐ,8⤠(41⁈䍁楬敳e䀠1⸵⁋ / m楬攩

61⸵





2011 ⡃慳楮g猠snly
-

䙌06Ⱐ12Ⱐ13Ⱐ,9Ⱐ21Ⱐ,2⤠⠱8⁃慳 ng猩

8





2012 ⠠䙌‶Ⱐ12Ⱐ,3Ⱐ24Ⱐ,33, 46Ⱐ55Ⱐ,2⤠⠱5⁈䍁 m楬e猠䀠@⸵⁋ / m楬攩


22⸵




2013⡆L‱8,19,21Ⱐ,2Ⱐ47⤠(44⁈䍁楬敳e䀠1⸵⁋ / m楬攩





4
-
30


Table 1


Transmission Integrity Management Costs

$ Thousands

Activity

2011

2012

2013

ICDA (Utah Only)






2011 (FL 14, 41, 48, 52, 88)

350





2011
Excavations (8 excavations @ 3 K ea.)

24



Inline Inspection






2011 (FL 26)

300





2011 Excavations/ Validation Digs/ Remediation (4 excavations @ 12 K ea)

48





2012 (FL 4)


300




2012 Excavations/ Validation Digs/ Remediation (4 excavations @
12 K ea)


48


Direct Examination (Utah Only)






2011
-

Spans (2 spans @ 75 K / span)

150





2011
-

Vaults (3 vaults @ 5 K/ vault)

15





2012
-

Spans (2 spans @ 75 K/ span)


150




2012
-

Vaults (3 vaults @ 5 K/ vault)


15




2013
-

Spans (2 spans

@ 75 K/ span)



150



2013
-

Vaults (3 vaults @ 5 K/ vault)



15

HCA Validation






Identified Site Survey ( QPEC
-

1200 hrs @ $30.00 / hr)

36

36

36



Identified Site Survey (misc. travel expenses 40 days @ $125/day)

5

5

5



Data integration/ update

HCAs (100 hrs @ $70.00/ hr)

7

7

7

Excavation Standby






4 employees (2080 hrs x 4 x $70.00/hr)

582.4

582.4

582.4

Additional Leak Survey






120 hrs @ $70.00/hr

8.4

8.4

8.4

Additional Cathodic Protection Survey






Outside Consultants

200

200

200

4
-
31


Table 1


Transmission Integrity Management Costs

$ Thousands

Activity

2011

2012

2013

Administration







Project Coordination (3 employees (2080 hrs x 3 x $70.00/hr))

436.8

436.8

736.8



Coordinator


佰敲慴eon猠suppo牴r(0⸵.敭ploy敥 ⠱040⁨牳⁸‱ 砠$70⸰0⁨爩

72⸸

72⸸

72⸸



Data Integration Specialists (2 employees (2080 hrs x 3
x $70.00/hr))

285.6

285.6

285.6



Data Integration Specialist
-

QPEC (1500 hrs x $30.00/hr)

45

45

45



Supervisor (1560 hrs x $70.00/hr)

109.2

109.2

109.2



Engineering (1560 hrs x $70.00/hr)

109.2

109.2

109.2



Training (for IM personnel)

22.45

22.45

22.45

Transmission Integrity Management Total ($ Thousands)

$ 6,508

$ 3,479

$ 4,031

4
-
32


Table 2


Distribution Integrity Management Costs

$ Thousands

Activity

2011

2012

2013










Distribution Integrity
Management








NOTE:

The following is a detailed description of the impact on the Company’s on
-
going
operations and costs associated with the new distribution integrity management rule. These
numbers represent the projected future costs associated with compliance with this n
ew rule and
represent total costs for the entire company and is not limited to just Utah.








§ 192.383

Excess Flow Valve Installation









Administrative Functions (reporting, procedures, documentation) 10 hrs + 2500 hrs
@ $70.00/hr

175.7

175.7

175.7


§ 192.1001

What definitions apply to this subpart?






Procedures and training


200⁨牳⁀ $70⸰0/hr








§ 192.1005

What must a gas distribution operator do to implement this subpart?






Implementation Team


50⁈牳 y敡e⁀․70.00/⁨

3⸵

3⸵

3⸵



P污l⁔敭p污l攠
-

$25,000⸰0
捯v敲敤⁩e′010)






P污l⁐r数e


250⁨ 猠䀠$70.00/h爠r2011)

17⸵





P污l⁵ d慴a/牥v楳ions


250⁨牳† ․70.00/hr


17⸵

17⸵



M慮慧攠ov敲慬e⁰ og牡r


500⁨牳† ․70.00/hr








§ 192.1007

What are the
required elements of an integrity management plan?






System Knowledge


200⁨牳†䀠$70⸰0/hr









䥤敮瑩晹e瑨t敡e猠


100⁨牳†䀠@70⸰0/hr

7

7

7



剩獫⁓Rf瑷慲攠


慮nu慬慩n瑥n慮捥









剩獫⁃慬捵Ra瑩tn猠


250⁨牳 ⁀․70.00/hr

17⸵

17⸵

17⸵



剥杩潮RMe整楮g猠


240⁨牳 ⁀․70.00/hr

16⸸

16⸸

16⸸



䙩敬e⁁捴楶i瑩敳t

400,000⸰0
攮e⸠汥慫⁳畲 敹,⁣慴aod楣i獵svey)

400

400

400



M敡獵物ng⁰敲 orm慮捥


100⁨牳† ․70.00/hr

7

7

7



P敲eod楣⁥v慬a慴aon


100⁨牳†䀠$70⸰0/hr

7

7

7



剥灯牴楮g


20⁨牳†䀠$70.00/hr

1⸴

1⸴

1⸴

4
-
33


Table 2


Distribution Integrity Management Costs

$ Thousands

Activity

2011

2012

2013


§ 192.1009

What must an operator report when compression couplings fail?






Revisions to database/ capture of field data
-
20 hrs @ $70.00/hr

1.4

1.4

1.4


§ 192.1011

What records must an operator keep?






80 hrs/ year @ $70.00/hr

5.6

5.6

5.6


Administration






Coordinator
-

Operations Support (0.5 employee (1040 hrs x 1 x $70.00/hr))

72.8

72.8

72.8



Supervisor (520 hrs x $70/hr)

36.4

36.4

36.4



Engineering (520 hrs x $70/hr)

36.4

36.4

36.4



Operations (2080 hrs x $70/hr)

145.6

145.6

145.6

Distribution Integrity Management Total ($ Thousands)

$ 1,024.6

$ 1,024.6

$ 1,024.6